Do you believe in mental causation?

Iacchus said:
No, I don't need your book to tell me which side my toast is buttered on. Thanks anyway. ;) As for the mental masturbation notion, is this just another of those coercive tacticts used for those folks who "won't" -- hmm, I wonder what that smacks of? -- get with the program? Why do you feel the need to discredit me in this regard? Obviously I'm not going to agree with you. Is this all it takes? Does what I say threaten you that much? Oops, there goes all our neat and tidy little theories by wayside. Yep, only to discover that the whole thing is nothing but a falsehood and a big sham. So, do you think you can handle that?
Click to expand...
My apologies. I offered that title under the (faulty, it turns out) assumption that you were honestly interested in the questions you were asking.

Obviously, you're not going to agree with me...so you say. Fine. I have lots of people who don't agree with me. But right now you disagree with me out of ignorance, and I (again, wrongly) thought perhaps you would prefer to disagree with me after you have digested the relevant material. It does not bother me in the slightest to have someone disagree with me, even if they are very knowledgeable about the material--in fact, that is the way I learn the most. To have someone who does not know the material disagree with me is...completely irrelevant.

Fortunately, you are not the only one who reads these threads, and at least one other person actually has been inspired to read the book. So it has not been a complete waste of my efforts.
 
Iacchus said:
There, I've just proven that God exists. Unless you think you can continue shoving this pablum that "the self" doesn't exist down our throats. So, where's my million bucks!
Click to expand...

So where is the self?
 
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos said:
Only you have this problem, Ian.
Click to expand...
Wrong. :(

But there is only one, logical, answer .... :) (Unless you are an automaton, and who knows about that except the individual *you*.)


Most of us realize that the two situations are equivalent, and so do not care.

At least, I realize that. :D

~~ Paul
Click to expand...
Sure you do .... too bad you're wrong, again ... ;)
 
hammegk said:
Sure you do .... too bad you're wrong, again ...
Click to expand...
Care to elaborate. To recap Ian has said that there is a problem of deciding whether the mental reduces to the physical or vice versa, Paul says that the two situations are equivalents (I agree but perhaps for different reasons) and you say he is wrong.

What would be useful here is some hint about how you arrived at that conclusion - or is it just 'cos I say so'?

My personal viewpoint is that existence is not completely random - ie it operates according to some sort of underlying order. I thought that was obvious but Ian for example is resisting the idea furiously.

We are a small part of that existence and have developed a thing called intelligence that appears to be a function of a thing called a brain. Part of that function is that we have this thing called 'consciousness' which is sometimes a little hard to get a handle on.

But it is all part of existence and whatever order underpins it. Whether we call this existence we are experiencing "mental" or "physical" or "needle nardle noo" is immaterial, if you will pardon the expression.
 
Robin said:

But it is all part of existence and whatever order underpins it. Whether we call this existence we are experiencing "mental" or "physical" or "needle nardle noo" is immaterial, if you will pardon the expression.
Click to expand...
So true. I couldn't have said it any better.
 
Iacchus said:
Hey, I have no problem accepting that the physical world exists. However, it seems like there has to be some other agent which coexists with and animates the whole thing. Otherwise what's the point? It then becomes a whole pointless exercise in the articulation of nothing. If there was nothing there in the first place, why should there be the need to articulate anything at all?
Click to expand...
Interesting. Matter exists as a particle and as a wave.
Since space confines matter, any attempt to move matter
by an outside force will force it out of phase with itself,
thus into non-existance. Therefore, matter animates itself.
:)
 
Synchronicity said:
Interesting. Matter exists as a particle and as a wave.
Since space confines matter, any attempt to move matter
by an outside force will force it out of phase with itself,
thus into non-existance. Therefore, matter animates itself.
:)
Click to expand...
However, is there a difference between that which induces and that which is induced?
 
Interesting Ian said:
I am making no assumptions about the origin of mental causation, I simply want to know if people believe it exists.

Thus why do I drink a glass of pineapple squash? I might be very thirsty. But that doesn't make me drink, even though the fact that I will get a drink might be 100% predictable. Thus if I'm incredibly thirsty this will have such a huge influence on my behaviour that I am bound to get a drink (although this need not be the only scenario where my behaviour could in principle be 100% predictable). But the thirstiness in itself does not compel me to drink. It's my decision which does that. Nor does the thirstiness compel my decision, although it may render my decision as 100% predictable.

So that's what I'm asking.
Click to expand...

Ian Hi hows this???

Im thinking if Im thirsty and that pineapple squash drink is there

I may want to drink it to quench my thirst

But I may still decide not to drink it

One would tend to think I probably will drink it, but theres always surprises in life and I just may not.

well???

If this is mental causation then even though I do not know the term maybe I understand your meaning and tend to agree if indeed it works this way.

:)
 
Interesting Ian said:
By mental causation I mean that our intentions/desires etc are actually causally efficacious in themselves and bring about appropriate behaviour.
Click to expand...

Is this a topic between serious philosophers? Just curious.

I want to have a pee. I lift the lid because my wife says I have to and I desire not to be snarled at. That's causally efficacious is it not? (as is finding the toilet in the dark)
 
Interesting Ian said:
I am making no assumptions about the origin of mental causation, I simply want to know if people believe it exists.

Thus why do I drink a glass of pineapple squash? I might be very thirsty. But that doesn't make me drink, even though the fact that I will get a drink might be 100% predictable. Thus if I'm incredibly thirsty this will have such a huge influence on my behaviour that I am bound to get a drink (although this need not be the only scenario where my behaviour could in principle be 100% predictable). But the thirstiness in itself does not compel me to drink. It's my decision which does that. Nor does the thirstiness compel my decision, although it may render my decision as 100% predictable.

So that's what I'm asking.
Click to expand...

In what material way does what you call your "decision" differ from an intention or a desire? What makes a decision less mental than an intention?
 
Re: Re: Do you believe in mental causation?

Elind said:
Is this a topic between serious philosophers? Just curious.

I want to have a pee. I lift the lid because my wife says I have to and I desire not to be snarled at. That's causally efficacious is it not? (as is finding the toilet in the dark)
Click to expand...

If Im getting Ian right, you dont have to lift the lid (I hope you really mean seat ;) )and even though you know you will get snarled at (rightly) you do it anyway.

Gotta say now Ive said that, Ive seen that in action more than once. :D
 
Re: Re: Re: Do you believe in mental causation?

Kitty Chan said:
If Im getting Ian right, you dont have to lift the lid (I hope you really mean seat ;) )and even though you know you will get snarled at (rightly) you do it anyway.

Gotta say now Ive said that, Ive seen that in action more than once. :D
Click to expand...

Right you are seat it is. Even in the dark.

;)
 
Mercutio said:
No. Could you give an example?
Click to expand...
Hmm .... used to be a pretty common expression. And now we have to go through all this "mental" rigamarole to try and explain it. But guess what? It's still mind over matter. Otherwise there would be nothing "mental" about it.
 
Iacchus said:
Hmm .... used to be a pretty common expression. And now we have to go through all this "mental" rigamarole to try and explain it. But guess what? It's still mind over matter. Otherwise there would be nothing "mental" about it.
Click to expand...
So..."no". You can't give an example.

I did not ask you to explain it, I simply asked you for an example. Can you do that?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom